"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians

Index

For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

 
Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 12     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:

I do not deny there are other identifiers for Tarshish used by bro. Thomas, than the five I have listed. The point I make, is that the five I have listed are "unique" identifiers. That it, they can only refer to one nation/city. The other identifiers, such as the very few you mention, have many possible conclusions. The United States is easily (and in fact, today, uniquely) included in all the identifiers you list from bro. Thomas. Britain cannot be considered in any of the identifiers I list from bro. Thomas. Can you not see this difference? Lets look at the three you list.


Please note for sake of importance that these five "unique" identifiers were never described by bro Thomas as his five unique identifiers.  These are bro Jim's words, not bro Thomas'.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear as to why I included the quote below in my last post.   Bro Jim makes the case, and really his entire case hinges upon this, that bro Thomas uses five "unique" identifiers to indentify Tarshish, which are the richest nation, greatest naval nation etc.   My point is that when bro Thomas deals with the question "who is the Tarshish of Ezekiel?" he doesn't say "which is the greatest nation etc" rather he says, to ascertain this we must direct our attention to the countries named in connection with the "young lions".
 

 

Quote:

1. "To ascertain this we must direct our attention to the countries named in connection with "the young lions." (Identifier no. 1) Of these, Sheba and Dedan are districts of Arabia. The men of Dedan are in the list given by Ezekiel of the traders in the Tynan fairs."   - Bro Thomas, Elpis Israel

 

Although bro Thomas writes about Tarshish extensively, there is only one article I have come across which is entitled "Tarshish" which is to be found in the Herald.   If Bro Jim is correct, then surely in such an article we would find bro Thomas going to great lengths to use the criteria bro Jim points out.   In the following article entitled "Tarshish" bro Thomas fails to mention any of those five points enlisted by bro Jim.  

Quote:

 

TARSHISH.

THE IDEAS OF THE HEBREW SACRED HISTORIANS IN RESPECT TO THE WESTERN LOCALITY COMPREHENDED UNDER THIS TITLE.

 

There was, unquestionably, with these writers, an Eastern locality to which the name Tarshish was, in some manner, applicable. It was reached by water from the ports of the Red Sea; the time occupied by the whole voyage was three years; and the imports from it into Syria were, “gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks”—1 Kings 10: 22; 22: 48; 2 Chronicles 9: 21; 20: 36-37.

 

The family of Tarshish (a grandson of Japheth) might have thrown off a colony to the eastward; or this eastern Tarshish might have obtained its Shemitic name, from some fancied resemblance between it and the main settlements of the Tarshish race in the west of Europe, in something of the same manner that, in our days, there are East Indies and West Indies.

 

The Western Tarshish, however, was certainly the original stock and territory. Javan, the son of Japheth, had four sons, “Elishah and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. By these were the isles of the Gentiles” (the coasts of Europe, and in part, perhaps, of Africa, from Syria westward), “divided in their lands: every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations”—Genesis 10: 4-5.

 

They did not proceed to occupy the then wilderness earth, in mixed parties; but separated themselves from the beginning, into great family nations. Accordingly, also, to the prevailing custom of those days, the region each family selected was named after one of its early progenitors. —(As, Assyria from Asshur, Canaan from Canaan, Cush (Ethiopia) from Cush, &c.)

 

To appreciate the true character of their colonising movements, it is of very great importance to cast off the nursery prejudice, that in arts, sciences, and civilisation, the early descendants of Noah had to begin the world again. The truth is, probably, to an amount which we rarely conceive or admit, on the opposite side. Noah and his sons, must have possessed the experience and refinement of the antediluvian age. —(The sculptures and other relics of ancient Nineveh also give strong support to this assumption.) The constructors of the ark could not have been inferior shipwrights, or the architects of Babel contemptible builders.

 

The grandsons of the high-principled Japheth, were likely to carry with them in their practical colonisation, the highest attainments of the age. Gesenius, one of the best recent authorities on ancient geography, indicates the order of their settlements to be; —(Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon by Bagster, in loci.) —Dodanim, at the western end of Asia Minor; Elishah, in Peloponnesus; Chittim, in Northern Greece, and, perhaps Italy; and Tarshish in Spain.

 

Adopting this arrangement as correct, the probability (in a question, be it remembered, which in our days is suspended altogether on probabilities,) becomes preponderating; that, under the very general ideas which the sacred historians embraced of very distant countries, the term Tarshish (when applied to the western locality of that name), comprehended indistinctly, in their minds, the whole region of the uttermost south-west and neighbouring west of Europe.

 

It is, again, within the bounds of very reasonable probability, that the race of Tarshish, for a time, actually occupied that region with settlers. According to Dr. Cowles Prichard, the Iberians (Euskaldunes, or modern Basques,) were the aborigines of Gaul and Spain. —(“In the west, as aborigines of western Europe, we have the Euskaldunes, or ancient Iberians, . . . . . they are supposed to have inhabited Spain, Gaul, and Italy.”—Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, vol. iii. page 17.) He, certainly, resists strongly the supposition that they ever formed settlements in the British Islands; but it is only on the ground, that no evidence remains of such settlements. Against this conclusion, we may with fairness range on the opposite side; that no evidence remains that they did not form such settlements, or that any other human beings, whatever, were then in possession of the domains we Britons now occupy.

 

The Celtae, Dr. Prichard admits, came from the east after the Iberians; extirpated the latter out of all their possessions, except the impregnable western Pyrenees and mountains of Biscay; and passed over to Great Britain and Ireland. In which last mentioned countries, the historians, Tacitus the Roman, Lhuyd the Welchman, and Niebuhr the German, conceive they might have found as aborigines, the Iberians.

 

Be this as it may, it is reasonable to consider, that, regarding the Iberians as the descendants of Tarshish, the sacred historians should not have run very precise boundary lines as to what portions of the extreme west and south-west of Europe were occupied by actual settlers, and what portions were still in wilderness; but that in their generalising and most obscure notions of distant lands, they comprehended the whole region, and its adjacent islands, under the name of the immediate progenitor of the first occupants.

 

The evidence of strong probability which is thus derived from the name of the natural father of the aboriginal race, is, in the most forcible manner, corroborated by the circumstances and proceedings of the commercial parents of the same region, the Phoenicians.

 

It is connected with this most ancient and enterprising nation of merchants and mariners, that the western Tarshish is mentioned in sacred writ. So early as about 580 years before the Christian era, Ezekiel, describing the commerce of Tyre, says of it, “Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all riches; with silver, iron, TIN, and lead, they traded in thy fairs”—Ezekiel 27.

 

At that period, (580 years before the Christian era,) the distant region called Tarshish, was, evidently, from the prophet’s description, a long established, and extensively occupied, portion of the globe. In our days we have seen Australia, at the very antipodes, springing up into importance in little more than half a century, and its adjacent islands and coasts well searched out. How great and extensive then, in all reasonable probability, must have been, after centuries of occupation, the results produced in the region of Tarshish, by sailors as enterprising, and merchants as eager, as are even those of modern England!

 

In the ages when brazen armour, swords, spears, and other instruments, were counted of the highest value, and when brass (as has been proved by modern analysis) was invariably “an alloy of tin and copper,” the tin of Cornwall must have been a stimulus at least as exciting, as now is the gold of Australia.

 

It is true, that “tin mines were opened by the Phoenicians on the northern coast of Spain beyond Lusitania.” (Strabo, 119.)—Historical researches, by A.H.L. Heeren. Translated, Oxford, 1833, vol. ii. Page 66. —But, also, “it is fully proved, that the British and Cassiteredean isles were the seat of the tin trade.”—Page 68.

 

The same is supported, most fully, by Sharon Turner in the introduction to his “History of the Anglo-Saxons,” with the assertion, also, that “the most learned at home and abroad” unite in this opinion. Moore, in his “History of Ireland,”—(For all such quotations see History of Ireland, by Thomas Moore, vol. 1. chapter 1.)—is as decisive and more copious to the same effect; adding to it, on very ancient testimony, that “the husbandmen or planters of Carthage, as well as her common people, went to those isles.”

 

From old authorities and existing relics, quoted and adduced by Moore and other recent writers, it further appears, that Ireland was revered by the Phoenicians as “the Sacred Island,” the mysterious far-west of the whole world, and devoted by them to the worship of the sun, under the name of the great deity of Phoenicia, “Baal Samhim.”

 

Thus the two passions for which the Punic race was eminently notorious, enthusiastic idolatry in religion, and rapacious idolatry in commerce, united to make the British Islands a greater point of attraction to them, than probably was any other portion of the earth.

 

Heeren observes, among the oriental nations who had heard nothing more from the mysterious Phoenicians than the name of this distant country, Tarshish; “it was considered in a general manner as the furthermost place towards the west, without any one being able to give more accurate information concerning it; but in the commercial geography of the Phoenicians, was evidently understood, the whole of Southern Spain which had been subject to their authority. It was consequently a very indefinite term, much the same as that of the West Indies among the moderns.”

 

The limitation of the name among even the commercial Phoenicians, may well be doubted; but, most manifestly from all the preceding testimony and considerations, we have sound reason for holding the conviction, that among the Hebrews and the Eastern people in general, it included the whole region beyond the straits of Gibraltar, from which the “ships of Tarshish” came, and from which the “silver, iron, tin, and lead” were procured.

 

In this sense, we discern the beautiful consistency of sacred prophecy in describing the British Isles as “the daughter of Tyre,” and as the nation which shall be the FIRST to supply the “ships of Tarshish,” to convey the returning Israelites to “the name of the Lord their God.”

 

That judgments are foretold against the modern “ships of Tarshish”—Psalm 48: 7; Isaiah 2: 16, forms no objection to the interpretation. “Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth.” He calls England, by His word and providence, to the repetition of the most glorious work of Tyre, —the uniting with the Jews to “prepare the way” for the manifestation of His Majesty upon earth, —while, by His “loving correction,” He may purpose to deliver us from the vices of Tyre, unbelief, luxury, pride and commercial rapacity, and from her consequent total and fearful destruction. —Gawler’s Syria.

 

 

 

Bro Steve


STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #77 

 

Quote:

2. Addressing Tyre, the prophet says, 'Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs." These metals are the products of Britain (identifier no. 2), celebrated by the Phoenicians as Baratanac, or "the land of tin," as some construe it. The merchandise of the northern Tarshish, and of the eastern, identifies Britain and India with the two countries of that name; and Sheba and Tarshish in the prophecy of Gogue are manifestly indicative of the Lion-power of the Anglo-Indian empire.  Bro Thomas, Elpis Israel

You have missed the identifier here, and gone to the conclusion. The identifier is "Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches, with silver, iron, tin and lead, they traded in thy fairs." The conclusion was that the metals are products of Britain. You have the question reversed. And I have pointed out many times (and you have never disputed to me) that bro. Thomas identified many nations around the Mediterranean which dealt in tin. Britain, certainly among them.    - Bro Jim

 

Bro Thomas’ references TIN in almost every singe article he writes on this topic – in fact, if I was asked by someone to list bro Thomas’ top three Tarshish identifiers, then this would be amongst them.   When bro Thomas identified this, Britain’s very name was based upon her trade in metal.  Bro Jim’s argument that America is the nation which trades the most in tin today, is a much weaker argument and symbol.    Bro Thomas makes the point when he speaks of the “lion of England”, that the symbol is a well known fact, it’s what a nation is broadly recognised by.   Ask the average American do they associate themself with being the greatest “tin” trading nation in the earth, I imagine its not something that most people would be overly familiar with.  One could argue that its hardly a clue at all.    Just for emphasis, this is one of the consistent identifiers of Tarshish used by bro Thomas. 

 

Bro Jim also makes the point that both Spain and Britain were significant players in tin.  Although Bro Thomas references Spain, in the Herald he quotes an historian to highlight the fact that Britain was the significant player.

 

Quote:

It is true, that “tin mines were opened by the Phoenicians on the northern coast of Spain beyond Lusitania.” (Strabo, 119.)—Historical researches, by A.H.L. Heeren. Translated, Oxford, 1833, vol. ii. Page 66. —But, also, “it is fully proved, that the British and Cassiteredean isles were the seat of the tin trade.”—Page 68.

 

Bro Jim says there is no historical evidence as to Tarshish being linked with Britain in Bro Thomas’ writings and that bro Thomas was clearly wrong in his linking the Indian company with Britain, on account of the Company’s demise in later years.   This clearly is not bro Thomas’ view.  He says (and repeats this type of argument throughout his writings):-

 

Quote:

Be this as it may, it is reasonable to consider, that, regarding the Iberians as the descendants of Tarshish, the sacred historians should not have run very precise boundary lines as to what portions of the extreme west and south-west of Europe were occupied by actual settlers, and what portions were still in wilderness; but that in their generalising and most obscure notions of distant lands, they comprehended the whole region, and its adjacent islands, under the name of the immediate progenitor of the first occupants.

 

The evidence of strong probability which is thus derived from the name of the natural father of the aboriginal race, is, in the most forcible manner, corroborated by the circumstances and proceedings of the commercial parents of the same region, the Phoenicians.

 

It is connected with this most ancient and enterprising nation of merchants and mariners, that the western Tarshish is mentioned in sacred writ. So early as about 580 years before the Christian era, Ezekiel, describing the commerce of Tyre, says of it, “Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all riches; with silver, iron, TIN, and lead, they traded in thy fairs”—Ezekiel 27.

 

At that period, (580 years before the Christian era,) the distant region called Tarshish, was, evidently, from the prophet’s description, a long established, and extensively occupied, portion of the globe. In our days we have seen Australia, at the very antipodes, springing up into importance in little more than half a century, and its adjacent islands and coasts well searched out. How great and extensive then, in all reasonable probability, must have been, after centuries of occupation, the results produced in the region of Tarshish, by sailors as enterprising, and merchants as eager, as are even those of modern England!

 

In the ages when brazen armour, swords, spears, and other instruments, were counted of the highest value, and when brass (as has been proved by modern analysis) was invariably “an alloy of tin and copper,” the tin of Cornwall must have been a stimulus at least as exciting, as now is the gold of Australia.

 

 

These articles fully support my claim that bro Thomas had no such thing as "five unique identifiers".  Instead, as I have consistently claimed, bro Thomas uses a wide range of identifiers.

Bro Steve

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #78 
Another most interesting article in the Herald is below.   It is written by a non-Christadelphian who had also worked out that Britain is the western Tarshish. 
 

Quote:

Late Governor and Resident Commissioner of the Province of South Australia.

The portion of the surface of the globe to which our attention is to be directed in this address, is known to Europeans in general by the name of SYRIA.

 

Phoenicia, of which the principal sea-port and capital was the renowned city of Tyre, Zor, or Soor, was the great commercial, manufacturing, ship-building, colonising and science-spreading nation of antiquity. Her “merchants were princes, and her traffickers the honourable of the earth”—Isaiah 23: 8. Her emigrants formed settlements in the then uttermost west. Of these, evidences remain in the traditions of Ireland and the Irish language itself, in Punic relics found in the south of England, and in the enumeration of “tin” by sacred (Ezekiel 27: 12) and profane historians as articles procured from the western Tarshish, “the metal islands,” the “End of the earth.”

 

* This pamphlet was forwarded to me by a kind friend in England at my request. Finding that it sets forth the truth, I republish it for the benefit of my readers. It contains the substance of an address delivered by Colonel Gawler in “the Young Men’s Christian Association Lecture Room, Derby.” I do not recollect any point of difference between the Colonel and myself.

 

- Bro Thomas, Herald

 

 

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #79 

Quote:

This is, and always will be the flaw in the "England is Tarshish" theory. To sustain that argument, one must somehow make the argument that bro. Thomas is speaking historically, when it is crystal clear he is in reference to current events. And that argument cannot be made, because his own historical references contradict the idea that Britain is the historical Tarshish, as I have abundantly exhibited.   - Bro Jim

I think the articles I have quoted tonight show beyond a shadow of doubt what bro Thomas' real historical view was.

Therefore bro Thomas' argument is sustained and there is no flaw.  

Bro Steve
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #80 

It's interesting that the ex-British Primeminister was appointed the special envoy for Middle East when he left his role as primeminister.    "A true friend of Israel".


Tony Blair: A true friend of Israel
Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, 29 June 2007


Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem, 10 September 2006. (Peter Macdiarmid/MaanImages/POOL/AFP/Getty Images)

"A true friend of the State of Israel," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of his outgoing British counterpart Tony Blair. He was appointed this week as special envoy for the Middle East Quartet with a portfolio focused on Palestinian economic and political reform. "Tony Blair is a very well-appreciated figure in Israel," said Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. According to an Israeli government statement, Israel "will provide [him] with all necessary assistance in order for him to carry out his duties."

It should not come as a surprise that Israeli government officials welcome Blair to his new job. Although he has long claimed to be interested in supporting justice for the Palestinians, Blair has an unremitting record of bias towards Israel. After George W. Bush, Blair is probably the most disliked and distrusted individual, among Palestinians as well as in the Arab world in general. This stems not only from his role in the Iraq war, but because he has swallowed the neoconservative agenda whole, becoming one of the leading proponents of a "clash of civilizations" between a supposedly enlightened West and a backward Islamic world.

All the language of Blair's appointment describes the conflict not as one generated by Israeli occupation and colonialism -- something a more courageous former leader Jimmy Carter has characterized as "apartheid" -- but one of Palestinian failure, and a need for "institutional reform." This suits Israel perfectly because Blair, with his fake pro-Palestinian tones, is actually helping Israel to blame the victim by changing the subject from the brutal Israeli military rule that makes normal Palestinian life imposssible.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #81 

Hi bro. Steve,

Thank you for your thoughts, and the article on Tarshish by Colonel George Gawler.

But notice how, again, you make my point to bro. Bob. I pointed out that to accept bro. Thomas’ conclusion that Britain is Tarshish, a person must be prepared to find some reason to reject a significant portion of his exposition. Is this not what you have done here? You refer to this article written by Colonel Sawler, and tell us that we must consider bro. Thomas’ quoting of it, to supercede the sum total of his argument made over nearly 20 years. You write;

Quote:
Although bro Thomas writes about Tarshish extensively, there is only one article I have come across which is entitled "Tarshish" which is to be found in the Herald.

So, since this article agrees with the conclusions of bro. Thomas, you find a reason to invite us to accept this article (in this case, due to its title, Tarshish) and thereby reject the sum total of the exposition by bro. Thomas. In this, you make my point. You must know I would pass on such an invitation.

You are correct that I have introduced the term "unique identifier" into this discussion. It is not a term ever used by bro. Thomas. The purpose of identifying certain clues in this way is to exhibit which of the identifiers bro. Thomas’ developed in his exposition can only apply to one nation. Many of the identifiers bro. Thomas chose can apply to more than one nation. As Colonel Gawler pointed out, Tarshish was no doubt a name applied to the British Isles, but it was also a term applied to southern Spain, both its Mediterranean side, and its Atlantic side.

Quote:
(Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon by Bagster, in loci.) —Dodanim, at the western end of Asia Minor; Elishah, in Peloponnesus; Chittim, in Northern Greece, and, perhaps Italy; and Tarshish in Spain.

Adopting this arrangement as correct, the probability (in a question, be it remembered, which in our days is suspended altogether on probabilities,) becomes preponderating; that, under the very general ideas which the sacred historians embraced of very distant countries, the term Tarshish (when applied to the western locality of that name), comprehended indistinctly, in their minds, the whole region of the uttermost south-west and neighbouring west of Europe.

Similarly, "trading in tin" is a term used by Colonel Gawler to refer to Britain, Spain, and the Phoenicians in general. But certain clues can only apply to one nation. Only one nation can be the greatest naval power in the world. Those few clues are unique for that reason. Hence, my term.

But the point that you should not let escape you is that it is bro. Thomas who identified these clues, not me. He is the one who identified the fact that Tarshish was the greatest naval power, the richest nation, the greatest trading nation, and the nation to spread its protective wings over Israel, in the time in which he lived. I merely observe his exposition, and look to see who fills that role today. You want us to reject certain clues developed by bro. Thomas, because then no longer support his conclusion. But isn’t this a backward and dangerous way to proceed?

Shouldn’t a student look to the clues first, and then test the conclusion based on those clues, rather than choose a conclusion and defend it by hunting and picking through the clues, accepting what fits and rejecting what doesn’t, for no other reason than it doesn’t fit a predetermined conclusion?

Quote:
When bro Thomas identified this, [tin] Britain’s very name was based upon her trade in metal.

Now, didn’t you draw a distinction to bro. Bob, when bro. Thomas qualified his statements, such as by the word "probably." Yet doesn’t he always qualify the translation of Britain, or Varatanac, as the land of tin, when he refers to it? He always adds "as some construe it", or "as some interpret it." Does his qualification not indicate that he was not comfortable with the translation so as to defend it, and that in fact a little research will indicate that there is not much, if any, support for such a translation? Now it is true that the British Colonel has no problem with the translation of the Phoenician Varatanac into the English Britain. But the Colonel notes that much of what we know is based around the word "probably," yet goes on to write as if a thing is certain. Bro. Thomas shows much more intellectual restraint.

Quote:
Bro Jim’s argument that America is the nation which trades the most in tin today, is a much weaker argument and symbol.

The Tarshish nation is said to be a trader in precious metals, among them tin. America today is the leading trader in all these metals, not just tin. How then is the Tarshish nation, a trader in tin, said to be better identified as a nation who used to produce tin, though who no longer does so; than the nation currently the clear leader in the trade of all these metals? One might more reasonably argue that the petering out of the tin mines in Britain, is the more fitting symbol of the once great Tarshish state, who has fallen into decline due to her treatment of Israel.

Quote:
Bro Jim says there is no historical evidence as to Tarshish being linked with Britain in Bro. Thomas’ writings and that bro Thomas was clearly wrong in his linking the Indian company with Britain, on account of the Company’s demise in later years. This clearly is not bro Thomas’ view.

Of course it was not bro. Thomas’ view. The East India Company had an existence in bro. Thomas’ lifetime. He thought the company was poised to play an major role in the events of the time of the end. And had Christ returned in that time frame, no doubt it would have. That was not God’s plan.

But that company has no existence now. It hasn’t since three years after his death. Are you arguing that it does? Or even that it will? How can you continue to defend the notion that something which no longer exists, represents anything?

Britain had no relationship to India prior to 1600. That is a fact. So there is no historical link between Britain and India. There was a link between Britain and India in bro. Thomas’ day. He drew upon that link to exhibit the East India Company (not India) as the Eastern Tarshish. This proves my point. Tarshish is not an historical nation, but a nation which shall exist in the current events of the return of Christ.

Tony Blair: To this point, I like Tony Blair. It is true that he argues that Israel should give back the land taken in the various wars, but he usually will make the argument that if any other nation was in Israel’s position, they wouldn’t. This is at least honest.

Britain has had many statesmen which have favored the Jews. They just haven’t been dominant enough to force their point, and some of them have been too sympathetic to the Arabs. Blair himself said this about his views pertaining to the Jews and Arabs, and those of the people of Britain:

Quote:
"The trouble with a large part of the Western world is that we're in a state of semi-apology the whole time, and that's an absolutely hopeless position from which to take this thing on... A large part of public opinion in the West is basically saying, 'We have caused this. It's our fault they're like this.' I just think that's nonsense."

He said he had personally found himself "in profound disagreement with a large part of public opinion" in Britain on this, "which is tough." But he felt it was better to hold to his positions than to embrace what he considered misguided policies. "If you look at the posture of much of the Western world on Iraq and Afghanistan," he said, "it is, 'If you come after us really, really hard, we'll give up.' I mean, how do you win a battle from that perspective?"

It is also true that the US has had anti Israeli men in influential positions. The American people have not tolerated them long. Former President Jimmy Carter was replaced after one four year term. And even during that term, his anti Israeli positions were not as obvious as they later became. His statement concerning "apartheid" came many years after he left the presidency. At the time he wrote it, there were 24 Jews on his committee for his library. They all resigned.

Jim

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Quote:
Although bro Thomas writes about Tarshish extensively, there is only one article I have come across which is entitled "Tarshish" which is to be found in the Herald.

So, since this article agrees with the conclusions of bro. Thomas, you find a reason to invite us to accept this article (in this case, due to its title, Tarshish) and thereby reject the sum total of the exposition by bro. Thomas. In this, you make my point. You must know I would pass on such an invitation. - Bro Jim


Surely bro Jim, you are not going to argue that an article which he entitled Tarshish, is not an exposition of his views on Tarshish?    My reason for including the article on Tarshish was not to merely show bro Thomas' conclusion.  My point is that in an article entitled Tarshish, which is his exposition on the subject, bro Thomas does not once use the identifiers that you have escalated to be the unique identifiers.    Perhaps we should look at the whole exposition of bro Thomas and not just a narrow part.   When we look at the whole picture and take all of his exposition, we do not arrive at the conclusion that America is Tarshish.   Bro Thomas did not believe from his 'exposition' and superior 'knowledge' of prophecy, that America was a part of the prophetical writings.     That was his exposition and conclusion.

Bro Steve
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #83 
Hi bro Bob,

Thank you for yesterday's reply to bro Jim.   I totally endorse what you said yesterday.

Quote:
 
99.9% of the time, through study,  I will endorse brother Thomas' conclusions. What, therefore,  makes the subject difficult? For me, the challenge is one brother staying almost entirely with brother Thomas as written, while the other carries the Doctor's exegesis to a logical present-day application.


For me, there are some additional difficulties.    Bro Jim's position essentially attempts to calculate what bro Thomas might have believed if he were living today, based on bro Jim's interpretation/understanding of the criteria bro Thomas used.   I believe that fundamentally this attempt, discredits the doctor's understanding, not of what were then 'present day' events, but of his understanding of prophecy.    Brethren and sisters have, for 85+ years, been amazed at the staggering accuracy of bro Thomas' expectation from prophecy of how the world's scene has unfolded in relation to the protection afforded by Britain and their invitation to the Jews to return to their homeland, amongst other things.   His prophetical views were from his extensive studies of the Scriptures.   I have shown here in the last few days that bro Thomas' idea was based on much wider criteria than bro Jim suggests.  So for me, to accept bro Jim's ideas, is even more difficult because not only do I agree with the doctor's conclusions 99.9% of the time, I also question some elements of the accuracy of bro Jim's claims. 

The second difficulty is that I don't believe that there is a double application of Ezekiel 38, and I have never heard anyone say that their understanding of this prophecy is that it was to be fulfilled through two Tarshish powers, the first in the run up to the latter days, and then the second, in the latter days themselves.   Either Britain is the Lion-Power of Tarshish in the latter days or she is not.   If she is not, then we have some difficulties with understanding how she was Israel's especial protector for so many years inviting them home to their homeland, and with the way in which she was unquestionably the wings under which so many other nations were protected last century.   Further, if she is not, then all that has come to pass since the days of bro Thomas (circa 150 years), in which Britain has played by far the most significant role in the world, is purely incidental to Scripture prophecy.

Bro Steve
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #84 
This picture taken from a 1936 Canadian Journal shows Canada accepted the fact she was a young lion.    If the US is Tarshish, does Canada accept being a young lion of the US empire today?




Attached Images
Click image for larger version - Name: Canada.jpg, Views: 208, Size: 126.07 KB 

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #85 

Hello bro. Steve,

And thank you for your thoughts.

The article you quote from is not written by bro. Thomas. I hope we are clear on that. It is an exceprt from a work by a British Colonel named George Gawler, who was contemporary with bro. Thomas, and who wrote extensively in support of British aid and assistance to Palestine. Clearly, bro. Thomas felt the points raised by the Colonel were correct. I think they were correct too, for that day.

But the conclusion you are drawing is not correct. You conclude that since bro. Thomas printed this excerpt of Colonel Gawler’s work under the title, "Tarshish," that this excerpt must necessarily be the comprehensive expression of bro. Thomas’ beliefs. You make that argument when it is clear it is just an excerpt, and there is nothing in the excerpt to indicate that it is an attempt to be exhaustive. There is nothing in bro. Thomas’ writings to indicate that this excerpt is to be considered comprehensive. And you make your point against the abundance of evidence that bro. Thomas does add to the exposition of Tarshish in his other great works; defining Tarshish as the greatest Navy, the richest nation, the greatest trading nation, and the protector of Israel.

This is what I mean when I say that your position requires you to find some reason to ignore or reject important aspects of bro. Thomas’ teaching.

Quote:
Surely bro Jim, you are not going to argue that an article which he entitled Tarshish, is not an exposition of his views on Tarshish?

I do not deny that this article represents a part of bro. Thomas’ exposition. I only deny that because other aspects of his exposition are not mentioned in this article, that therefore those aspects should be discounted or disregarded.

I know that Colonel Gawler makes the point elsewhere, that Tarshish was to be the protector of Israel at the time of the end. He does so based on Isa. 18. So your inferences would not be even be true that this excerpt is exhaustive relating to Colonel Gawler’s understanding, let alone according to bro. Thomas.

Bro. Thomas draws his observations concerning the strength and wealth of Tarshish from considering the ancient Tyre/Tarshish as the type of the latter day Tyre/Tarshish. I do not remember ever seeing this in the expositions of Colonel Gawler. If the Colonel never made this connection, and if bro. Thomas did make this connection; surely that would explain (not that any explanation is truly needed) why this aspect of Tarshish is not included in this excerpt.

Quote:
Perhaps we should look at the whole exposition of bro Thomas and not just a narrow part.

What am I missing here? Am I not the one arguing for the inclusion of all bro. Thomas’ clues on the subject? Or 99.9% of them, anyway. Are you not arguing for the ignoring and elimination of many of the clues brought to light by bro. Thomas, and substituting in their place, excerpts from British Colonels? And the ones you do accept, you can only accept based on some historical relationship which no longer exists, because a current examination of even those clues you are willing to accept, (after the example of bro. Thomas) would make accepting bro. Thomas’ conclusion impossible? That this is the case is further evidenced by your recent suggestion that I have not correctly caught these teachings accurately. Please feel free to make that case.

Quote:
Bro Thomas did not believe from his 'exposition' and superior 'knowledge' of prophecy, that America was a part of the prophetical writings.

You are confusing things which differ. Bro. Thomas’ exposition is peerless. He saw connections and drew clues from types and shadows that most of us could not, and he did so in countless areas of Scriptures. Note how he drew conclusions from the Tyre/Tarshish type, that you are struggling so mightily with.

But he was also a product of his time, which to some degree, we all are. It was this fact that caused him to err on certain conclusions drawn from his exposition. For instance, I doubt you would be willing to argue that his superior understanding of prophecy which led to his projection of the return of Christ to be 1868-1870, to still be a valid conclusion. It was his expectation of Christ’s imminent return that caused him to see the end of the 2520 of Daniel 4 to be 1908-10. And as we have already discussed, it was the time he lived which caused him to see the East India Company as the eastern Tarshish. All these conclusions are now demonstrably wrong. His conclusion that Britain was Tarshish is in identically the same vein as the above.

These wrong conclusions were derived directly from his conviction that Christ’s return was at the door, they were not the product of faulty exposition. He knew from his exposition that there had to be a Tyre/Tarshish nation at the time of the end. He believed he was in the time of the end. The only reasonable conclusion for him was that Britain was the Tyre/Tarshish state. And understanding full well the advantage in wealth and strength that Britain held over the US, he knew it was not possible in the time he viewed as left, that the US could surpass Britain in relation to these most vital clues.

This is the same logic I use when I say it is not possible for Britain to rise again to her former position as Tarshish. I look for Christ’s return very soon. If I am wrong on that, then I am not at all prepared to say that Britain will not rise again. But I am too old to ever see it.

This discussion reminds me that you still have not explained how bro. Roberts could reason that the civil war, followed by the high price of labor in the US "preserved Britain’s role as Tarshish." Bro. Roberts pointed out that the effect of these two things kept the US Navy from surpassing the British, and thereby preserved Britain’s role as Tarshish. Can you explain bro. Roberts reasoning? How was the increase in size and strength of the American Navy, a threat to Britain’s role as Tarshish?  Since bro. Roberts evaluation of Tarshish is clearly based on the current size of the world’s greatest navy, just like mine, does bro. Roberts’ argument discredit bro. Thomas’ understanding of prophecy?

Concerning you question of Canada, I have already answered that. Canada is currently a disobedient young lion. She is in the process of being punished for her failure to roar in Iraq with the rest of the lions, and is smarting under the scourging. More scourging is on the way from the dominant male in the pride, as President-elect Obama has promised changes in NAFTA, though Canada may not fully understand this yet.

Canada has four defense pacts with the US, by which she has turned her military over to the control of US Generals and Admirals. Do they have any such defense pact with Britain?  (I ask because I do not know.)
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #86 
Dear Bro Jim,

Thank you for your latest response.

This response will be a short one as I have some project deadlines that I need to meet in the next couple of days.

Quote:

The article you quote from is not written by bro. Thomas. I hope we are clear on that. It is an exceprt from a work by a British Colonel named George Gawler, who was contemporary with bro. Thomas, and who wrote extensively in support of British aid and assistance to Palestine. Clearly, bro. Thomas felt the points raised by the Colonel were correct. I think they were correct too, for that day.


I offer you a sincere and unreserved apology for presenting the article on Tarshish as a bro Thomas article.   When reading this from a scanned in copy of the Herald, it was not clear that it was written by the Colonel.  Having checked a hard copy of the book tonight, your point is confirmed.   For this I apologise.

I will answer your other points over the next few days, when time permits, Yahweh willing.

Bro Steve
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #87 
No need to apologize, bro. Steve.  Quoting the Colonel as representative of bro. Thomas' position is certainly fair and reasonable.  We find that bro. Thomas held him in high esteem, even speculating as to whether he understood the truth.  But then he reminded us that it is possible to understand the truth concerning the kingdom, and be totally astray on the things concerning the Name.

No, there was nothing wrong with quoting him as defining bro. Thomas' position.  What I struggle with in your argument, is the idea that some part of bro. Thomas' exposition should be accepted at the expense of the other.  Through my personal studies, I have found no reason to reject any of his exposition.  It is all scripturally derived.  It is all time tested.  It is all valid today.  But to recognize and accept the entire exposition, is to reject the conclusion that Britain is Tarshish, because his entire exposition today, fits the US. 
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #88 
Hi bro Jim,

Quote:

But to recognize and accept the entire exposition, is to reject the conclusion that Britain is Tarshish, because his entire exposition today, fits the US. 



I think we can only arrive at the above conclusion if we reject outright certain of bro Thomas' exposition on this subject.  Here's a few examples:

1.  You present the US as a non-producing tin nation, but the greatest user of the metal today.   When bro Thomas used this as a clue, he did not look for the nation who used it the most, but the nation which produced it.   The pioneers used history books and geographical maps to identify the source of tin.

2.  You present the argument that the doctor sometimes translated the word "Isles" as "Coasts" but when we read all of his articles on Tarshish, he mostly uses Isles without any references to Coasts, and in some places renders it "Isles of Coasts".   Again, to apply this to the US would be somewhat of a twist or stretch.

These are just two simple examples of where I believe it to be wrong to use the term "his entire exposition fits the US".   

What is your view on the application of the protective role of Israel in the latter days?   In your view, did Britain play any prophetic part in restoring the Jews to their homeland, or was the fact they played this part in the early part of last century incidental to prophecy?   

If you believe they prophetically played the Tarshish role when they were considered the Tarshish power in protecting the Jews and overseeing their return to their homeland, what is your support from Scripture that there is to be a two-fold application of the prophecies involved?

Bro Steve
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #89 
It goes to show how positions change.   The NIC report was somewhat different to the one it produced 4 years ago which predicted the US to grow in dominance.

US global dominance 'set to wane'

US aircraft carrier USS Stennis - 6/2/2007
The US will face more competition at the top of a multi-polar global system

US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.

It also says the dollar may no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #90 
Interesting quote from the pen of Bro Roberts:

Quote:

"Dr. Thomas was of the opinion that in the last phase of human affairs (just before the setting up of the Kingdom at the coming of Christ), America would cooperate with Britain in her efforts against the world in arms. The friendly feeling that now prevails between the two countries, and the rumours of political alliance between them, certainly look as if this prognostication were to be fulfilled. Such an alliance would secure Britain's food supply in the direst emergency. It is wonderful how many of Dr. Thomas' political anticipations, based upon the indications of prophecy, have been realised. America would certainly, as you observe, make a fine strong young lion, to roar in support of the young lions who will presently raise a chorus of growls against the Northern Bear when she comes down to assail the old mother."

 


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.